• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Coverage of Wisconsin Foxconn deal is based on lies.

I'd agree with you as long as the incentives are across the board. But if Wisconsin passes legislation that gives you, a rich donor, a special tax break that cuts your taxes from $1 million to $0, then that $1 million in lost revenue has to be made up somehow.
How is it lost? If Foxconn doesn't decide to open up shop in Wisconsin....is there a magic gain in revenue?
Either the rest of the taxpayers have to cough up an additional $1 million, or spending has to be cut $1 million.
Where is the state losing this money with Foxconn showing up? Where is the government actually SPENDING this money?



If you lose your biggest client, you're not out of pocket a penny, but it will "cost" you plenty. It's the same concept. As is the idea that if you owe me $10 and I forgive that debt, it has no cost to me. Of course it does.

And even in the case of across the board tax cuts, there is a cost, which is whoever is on the short end of the spending cuts.
Because if I owed you $10, I actually received something to start with in order to owe you that $10. What good or service or direct funds did Wisconsin provide to Foxconn in order for there to be a "debt" in the first place?

As per your very last line..... I agree. However, Foxconn isn't currently receiving any government funds. Are you honestly saying that Foxconn's presence would actually cause the state's budget to have to be increased by an amount equaling the tax incentive deal? In what area of government services would Foxconn's presence be causing the state to have to spend this extremely large amount of money?
 
It belongs to the taxpayers themselves! They will have to foot the bill while Foxconn uses state infrastructure, human capital, government resources, etc... without having to pay for them like the rest of the state.

So Foxconn is going to use.... what was the number... a few billion dollars worth of state services?

The actual amount of money recieved by the state will actually INCREASE with this deal in place. It just won't increase by as much.
 
So Foxconn is going to use.... what was the number... a few billion dollars worth of state services?

They will use the roads, trains, and airports. They will hire people who went to Wisconsin schools and vocations. They will take up time from various local government agencies. And... this is a long term tax policy, 20 to 30 years out.

The actual amount of money recieved by the state will actually INCREASE with this deal in place. It just won't increase by as much.

This is a statement not supported by evidence.
 
How is it lost? If Foxconn doesn't decide to open up shop in Wisconsin....is there a magic gain in revenue?
Where is the state losing this money with Foxconn showing up? Where is the government actually SPENDING this money?

You made a general comment that "The idea that giving a tax incentive to someone is COSTING the government anything is also a flawed concept." It's not - tax incentives are foregone revenue and they have to be made up by other taxpayers, or spending must be cut. It's just math.

But if you want to talk specifically about Foxconn, they're getting at least $hundreds of billions in "refundable tax credits" which are just cash subsidies, grants, government giveaways administered through the tax system. The government will be spending money like they always do - writing checks of 7 or 8 or 9 figures to Foxconn every year.

And for the pure "tax incentives" - tax savings - Foxconn will consume considerable state resources, and is paying nothing for them. So the government is asking all the other taxpayers in WI to carry the load for Foxconn. That's fine, but you can't pretend that Foxconn doesn't consume any state resources as an excuse for them to not pay taxes, or enjoy tax breaks specifically granted to them and them alone. Any way you look at it, they are taxpayer subsidies of a multinational behemoth.

Because if I owed you $10, I actually received something to start with in order to owe you that $10. What good or service or direct funds did Wisconsin provide to Foxconn in order for there to be a "debt" in the first place?

Like every business in WI, they enjoy infrastructure, employ workers educated by public K-12 and public colleges in the state, police, airports, etc. all the stuff the state does to make WI a good place to do business.

As per your very last line..... I agree. However, Foxconn isn't currently receiving any government funds. Are you honestly saying that Foxconn's presence would actually cause the state's budget to have to be increased by an amount equaling the tax incentive deal? In what area of government services would Foxconn's presence be causing the state to have to spend this extremely large amount of money?

They are receiving state funds: Assembly approves $3 billion Foxconn bill.

Under Assembly Special Session Bill 1, the state would pay Foxconn up to $2.85 billion in cash over the next 15 years as the company makes investments in its plant and equipment and in paying its workers. The state would also waive an additional $150 million in sales taxes on construction materials.

But even if they weren't paying them actual cash out the door, the value of the services is still real.

Not really understanding your point otherwise. I'm not even arguing that this deal is bad - I suspect it's terrible because that's what lots of the analyses of these mega incentive packages show, but who knows. I'm just pointing out that we should call these thing what they are - massive taxpayer funded deals for behemoth multinational companies that will require the rest of Wisconsin to foot the bill for Foxconn for a couple decades.
 
No it isn't. If Foxcon doesn't locate there, then there is zero revenue.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...-up-3-billion-foxconn-bill-thursda/574621001/

Under Assembly Special Session Bill 1, the state would pay Foxconn up to $2.85 billion in cash over the next 15 years as the company makes investments in its plant and equipment and in paying its workers. The state would also waive an additional $150 million in sales taxes on construction materials.
 
So Foxconn is going to use.... what was the number... a few billion dollars worth of state services?

The actual amount of money recieved by the state will actually INCREASE with this deal in place. It just won't increase by as much.

Not for at least a couple of decades. The pretty optimistic break-even date is 2043.
 
That is actually $3 billion dollars in lost revenue.


There's no revenue now. Hence the revenue is not lost. If they move instead to Wyoming it would be the exact same thing.
 
The free market doesn't include govt "awarding" businesses.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
They don't award business unless they are looking at purchasing a good or service.

They are competing with other communities to attract a business who will create jobs, which means tax revenue for the community.
 
They don't award business unless they are looking at purchasing a good or service.

They are competing with other communities to attract a business who will create jobs, which means tax revenue for the community.

But an actual free market operates without government intervention.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
You're dancing all over the place. I was originally speaking of this quote ...

Each state can change its tax laws as they see fit, so I dont think there's a fairness component to this. Any other state interested in attracting Foxconn can present them with a sweeter deal, which certainly is in keeping with the principle of a free market.

To which I replied that a free market doesn't include the government awarding businesses.

Then you said something about communities competing to attract businesses to generate tax revenues for their respective communities. To which I then again reminded you that an actual free market operates without government intervention.

So then you said ...

Let me know when you find one.

Saying there really isn't an "actual free market" doesn't negate the fact that a free market is free of government intervention.
 
You're dancing all over the place. I was originally speaking of this quote ...



To which I replied that a free market doesn't include the government awarding businesses.

Then you said something about communities competing to attract businesses to generate tax revenues for their respective communities. To which I then again reminded you that an actual free market operates without government intervention.

So then you said ...



Saying there really isn't an "actual free market" doesn't negate the fact that a free market is free of government intervention.
There are elements of the feee market in this deal, since their is competition going on to determine where Foxconn will build its plant. I assumed that was obvious.

This isn't the government awarding business, but of course the government is involved. There really are very market transactions in this country that are 100% free of government intervention.
 
There are elements of the feee market in this deal, since their is competition going on to determine where Foxconn will build its plant. I assumed that was obvious.

This isn't the government awarding business, but of course the government is involved. There really are very market transactions in this country that are 100% free of government intervention.

That's because the US doesn't operate in a free market. And governments competing for businesses to locate in not part of the definition of "a free market". Hence my saying that I don't think "free market" means what you think it means.
 
That's because the US doesn't operate in a free market. And governments competing for businesses to locate in not part of the definition of "a free market". Hence my saying that I don't think "free market" means what you think it means.
Okay, have fun.
 
Conservatives are all giving Multi-BILLION Corporations welfare. When it comes to individuals? Not so much. Let them starve.

Interesting to put all of this in the context of hindsight, eh? Clearly that was a Con job of FoxConn, Governor Conjob of Wisconsin, and the greatest con artist this nation has ever seen, who it elected President in 2016. Interesting to see the posters that called this one right.

 
Back
Top Bottom